Larry Bigbie is a MAJOR RAT!

[Rockbird]

Oh my God, are we arguing about Hearsay??!? I JUST had to take an awful Civ Pro final and had to know the Hearsay Rules. Roberts statement would fall under the common exception "admission against interest" and be admissible. I say this in the most unpretentious way I can, but please don't try to argue about legal concepts which most lay people don't really understand the meaning of.

Here's a helpful fun filled video to better understand Hearsay and the common exceptions, with singing legos:

[blueberryale77]

It is NOT unsubstantiated information. It...is...what...was...told...to...him...and...thats...how...it...was...reported.

Your fandom has obviously made you completely lose any sense of objectivity.

That's ridiculous. We were told to expect documentary evidence: receipts, checks, credit card statements, phone records. None of these is present in Roberts' case. The fact that he's included in the list with the players they did find this type of evidence against is unfair because there is an unequal burden of proof.

[Mark Carver]

Naive. Tejadas B-12 butt shot sure turned Palmerio's season around in late April\early May.

Then after his positive test. Back to the floor.

Huh? The positive test was in late May or early June. He wasn't suspended until after he went through the appeals process which took him up to July 31st

May = 102 PA, 4-2B and 6-HR

June = 105 PA, 3-2B and 5-HR

July = 104 PA, 2-2B and 6-HR

So I guess Palmeiro didn't stop taking it after his positive test.

[olehippi]

Again, Bigbie telling Mitchell what Roberts said is not hearsay. If he told Mitchell that Miggy told him that Roberts had asked for steroids, that would be hearsay.

Just repeating the words they....and the ESPN attorney ....used. They are talking about Roberts again now.

[tennOsfan]

As an urban planner, I write reports which are public documents all the time. I do not put unsubstantiated information in them. This is not a gossip column or a blog, it's supposed to be a respected, professional document. Hearsay has no place in it. Look at how people are taking it. It's all about who's on the list. Very few people are distinguishing between those who bought multiple shipments of PEDs and those who a teammate claims admitted to trying it. Mitchell knew full well that this was going to be sensationalized and that people were going to look at the list as opposed to the evidence or lack thereof provided against individuals. He had a responsibility to be more scrupulous in what he included.

This isn't "gossip." It's Roberts admitting to Bigbie, and Bigbie reporting that conversation. That is evidence.

I'm prosecuting a guy for murder right now, and 90% of my case is three people who heard him he killed the guy. If those witnesses all testify, I'm likely in good shape with the jury. Under the law, that "hearsay" is competent evidence of his guilt.

This is my last post on Brian Roberts today, because I feel I'm talking in circles, constantly repeating myself. Surely at some point, perhaps not today, you will realize that Mitchell had every right to publish Brian's name based on what Bigbie reported. You're too smart a person to go jumping off the cliff to defend Brian Roberts on this.

[The Wedge]

That's ridiculous. We were told to expect documentary evidence: receipts, checks, credit card statements, phone records. None of these is present in Roberts' case. The fact that he's included in the list with the players they did find this type of evidence against is unfair because there is an unequal burden of proof.

And this is why you have to look at it as a REPORT and not a LIST! He was told this stuff, and therefore had to report it. That is neither Mitchell's or Bigbie's fault. It is even clearly reported in the report of exactly how he came about this information. It's right there for anybody to see how little evidence there is in comparison. However, this is supposed to be a total report so he can't just exclude this information because it's not as nice and bow tied. That negates the point of a full report.

Its on the people who read the report to realize what the report is. Which is why it's a REPORT. Not a god damned list.

[Pedro Cerrano]

That's ridiculous. We were told to expect documentary evidence: receipts, checks, credit card statements, phone records. None of these is present in Roberts' case. The fact that he's included in the list with the players they did find this type of evidence against is unfair because there is an unequal burden of proof.

Can I ask you why Larry Bigbie would make stuff up about Roberts? Or why he would feel the need to incriminate BRob?

And no, "trying to tell the people what they wanted to hear" doesn't pass the smell test.

[MP]

If Bigbie lied about Roberts to save his own butt, as has been suggested without reason, then Bigbie got royally screwed over. Because his butt was not saved. He is well documented in that report as a regular buyer of the goods.

I'm dissapointed in Roberts. I don't care if it was once, twice or a hundred injections. He's a big boy, he knew what he was doing.

[Moose Milligan]

That's ridiculous. We were told to expect documentary evidence: receipts, checks, credit card statements, phone records. None of these is present in Roberts' case. The fact that he's included in the list with the players they did find this type of evidence against is unfair because there is an unequal burden of proof.

See Frobby's lawyerin' post above.

[Baroquen131]

That's ridiculous. We were told to expect documentary evidence: receipts, checks, credit card statements, phone records. None of these is present in Roberts' case. The fact that he's included in the list with the players they did find this type of evidence against is unfair because there is an unequal burden of proof.

Flip it, and assume Mitchell didn't include less documented cases because there weren't as many details. Where do you draw the line? When do you get accused of protecting members, instead of trying to sensationalize?

Pure and simple - Mitchell and company reported what they were told by Bigbie and others. Some players had pages of documentation about them, others, like Brian, not so much. Stop trying to spin this in some fashion that will let you sleep better at night.

That's what they were told. Brian had a chance to explain the situation, and like almost all the other players declined. That was his choice. It will interesting to see how he responds to this in the future.

[blueberryale77]

And as a trial lawyer, I can tell you that if I was prosecuting Brian Roberts for using steroids, I could put Larry Bigbie on the witness stand, he could testify that Brian Roberts told him that he had injected himself with steroids, and that the testimony would be admitted into evidence. Admissions against interest are an express exception to the hearsay rule, accepted for hundreds of years in our courts, and are used every day to prove facts and throw people in jail or find them civilly liable to pay money damages.

You could put Larry Bigbie on the stand, but you wouldn't have much of a case without any corroborating evidence. Have you ever heard of someone being convicted of drug possession because someone testifies that the person admitted to them they once possessed drugs? Besides, I'm pretty sure you couldn't try Brian Roberts for allegedly possessing a small quantity of steroids in 2003 because of the statute of limitations.

[HoodGuy007]

I'm not going to continue rattling on about this. Last post, promise!

IMO, Brian being mentioned is upsetting because he is not mentioned to have any kind of proof of purchase (a check, credit card, anything), while everyone else on the list is a very substantiated claim --- checks, multiple witcnesses, trainers, etc.

I just find it odd that out of no where, Brian would one day just tell Larry, "Yeah dude, I've tried it," yet he never shot up with Club-Med. Ever. He never purchased from Radmoski, who he met. It just seems that there is not enough substantiated evidence to include being on this report, which, as seen by the news article I published earlier, is going to become a list through the media.

If he did it, it's sad. I don't know why Larry would lie, or throw him under the bus, but it just seems weird to me. Maybe he heard Brian wrong, or has had too many concussions, I don't know. But I simply can't take his word over Brian's.

[blueberryale77]

Maybe you should look up the career stats of Brian Roberts and stop making an honest Larry Bigbie a scapegoat.

Maybe you should look at what Larry Bigbie actually said and when he said it happened before deciding it has any bearing on something that happened two years later.

[olehippi]

As far as I'm concerned it's heresay if only one person here'd him say it.....

[Moose Milligan]

You could put Larry Bigbie on the stand, but you wouldn't have much of a case without any corroborating evidence. Have you ever heard of someone being convicted of drug possession because someone testifies that the person admitted to them they once possessed drugs? Besides, I'm pretty sure you couldn't try Brian Roberts for allegedly possessing a small quantity of steroids in 2003 because of the statute of limitations.

Then I guess witnesses have no use in a trial.

I didn't go to law school, though.